TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 132(4A), the assessee ought to have produced other documents to disprove the entries made in the loose sheets - The assessee has not adduced any rebuttal evidence to show that the entries made in the diary/loose sheets were not income in the hands of the assessee - The lower authorities recorded concurrent findings of fact and the Tribunal was justified in confirming the additions – Decided against assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2014 - R. Banumathi, C.J And Aparesh Kumar Singh,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Poddar, Senior Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Roshan ORDER R. Banumathi,C.J. The assessee has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved with the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the Tribunal in IT (SS)A No.65(Pat.) 2001. 2. Search and seizure operations were conducted on 27.10.1997 at the premises of the assessee under the provision of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice under section 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee on 20.11.1998 calling upon him to file his returns within a period of 45 days. The assessee filed the returns for the block period disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.6,51,321/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer should have allowed a further sum of Rs.72,000/-. CIT(Appeals) held that the total deduction allowable was not Rs.2,88,000/- but Rs.3,60,000/- and the total disallowable amount would come to Rs.3,76,600/- and granted relief of Rs.72,000/- to the assessee. 5. In appeal before the Tribunal, on perusal of the document no.6, it was noticed that the document no.6 nowhere contained an entry to the effect that the rent from November, 1993 to October, 1995 for the first-floor portion was paid at the rate of Rs.11,000/- p.m. Pointing out that the lower authorities were mis-directed concerning contents of the document and they reached the wrong conclusion, the Tribunal calculated disallowance under the head, House Rent at Rs.2,56,600/- as against Rs.3,76,600/- confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) and thus, granted further relief of Rs.1,20,000/- to the assessee under this head. 6. Unexplained Educational Expense of Rs.2,27,398/- On the basis of loose-sheets towards the educational expenses of the children of the assessee, an addition of Rs.2,27,398/- (Rs.1,81,278+Rs.46,118/-) was made. The Assessing Officer added the total expenses on estimate basis for the assessment years 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of loose-sheets is not justified and the Revenue has to bring some corroborative evidence to show that as per the entries made in the loose-sheets, the assessee has earned income out of it, which is undisclosed. In support thereof, the appellant placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I Vs. Lata Mangeshkar reported in [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom). 12. Learned counsel, Mr.Deepak Roshan, appearing for the Revenue submitted that special procedure is contemplated for search and seizure and as per section 158B(b) undisclosed income of the block period is inclusively defined and loose-sheets recovered during seizure ought to be taken as other documents and they cannot be merely termed as loose-sheets. Learned counsel further submitted that under the provision of sub-section (4A) of section 132, law raises presumption concerning the correctness of the documents (seized) and the said presumption is rebuttal and the assessee has not adduced any evidence rebutting the presumption raised under section 132(4A). 13. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. 14. Section 158B is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person s handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested. 18. Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxing Laws (Amendment Act, 1975) with effect from 1.10.1975 to permit the presumption to be raised in the circumstances mentioned therein. Before insertion of sub-section (4A), onus of proving that books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery etc. found in possession or control of a person in the course of search belonged to that person was on the Income Tax Department. Sub-section (4A) of section 132 enables an assessing authority to raise a rebuttal presumption that books of account, money, bullion, documents etc. belonged to such person; the contents of such books of account and other documents are true and that the signatures and every other part of such books of account and other documents are signed by such person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
